Adan Ramirez-Enriquez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAN RAMIREZ-ENRIQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72696
Agency No. A200-626-040
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Adan Ramirez-Enriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72696
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Ramirez-Enriquez raises new contentions regarding the
merits of his asylum claim. We lack jurisdiction to review those contentions
because he failed to raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency). Ramirez-Enriquez otherwise fails to challenge the agency’s
determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in
a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Ramirez-Enriquez’s asylum claim fails.
Ramirez-Enriquez also waived any challenge to the agency’s determination
that he failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears in El Salvador and a
protected ground. See id. Thus, Ramirez-Enriquez’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ramirez-Enriquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72696
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ramirez-Enriquez’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 26) is
denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial
notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in
the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --